Why Have We Gotten Better?

[NatP4]

don't kid yourself, the entire team effort level sank because Wall just didn't give a ****. they were giving up 120 every night and getting blown out by bad teams. They would be a little better just because Morris and Rivers are gone, but Wall is still a major problem. Never in his career has he been efficient or 100% committed to making the right play every second on the court. He was good when he atleast still played defense, he doesn't even pretend to try on defense now.

[nate33]

don't kid yourself, the entire team effort level sank because Wall just didn't give a ****. they were giving up 120 every night and getting blown out by bad teams. They would be a little better just because Morris and Rivers are gone, but Wall is still a major problem. Never in his career has he been efficient or 100% committed to making the right play every second on the court. He was good when he atleast still played defense, he doesn't even pretend to try on defense now.

He has usually been pretty good in the playoffs or in big games on national TV against important opponents. When he tries, he can still be a positive force.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sick of his inconsistent effort too. I said earlier that I'd rather watch the no-Wall team. It's easier to root for a hard-working .500 team that beats the teams they're supposed to beat and loses to the teams that are more talented; than it is to watch a lackadaisical .500 team, lose to sub-.300 teams 8 times a year while occasionally beating the top teams from time to time.

[tontoz]

After winning the first 3 games in December (2 of the wins were over Atlanta & the Knicks), we proceeded to go 2-6 in our next 8.

Since then we have gone 7-4. Why? The question is particularly interesting in that game by game over the last several weeks, Jeff Green has been returning to his average level of production. I.e. getting less productive.

I haven''t watched the games but i did notice that Porter played the first 4 games in Dec, missed the rest of the month, then played all the games in Jan.

In only 28.4 minutes per game in Jan he is averaging 15/6. I was a little surprised to see him attempting over 5 threes per game. Wasn't surprised to see him shooting over 40% from 3 though.

[Dat2U]

Why would we ever face either of those scenarios? Keep Otto, Sato, and Bryant and trade the real problem, John walls contract. There’s no need to re sign Dekker even, play Troy Brown Jr. build around that Sato-Beal-Otto-Brown Jr-Bryant core and keep making draft picks.

We seem to have had a chance to send Wall to the Lakers, but we didn't take it. Going to be harder to trade him now -- he'll have to play well in the first part of next season for that to be possible.

But, of course we should re-sign Dekker! If you have a player who produces at a higher level that what he's paid or likely to get paid, you absolutely sign that guy!

Dekker has now played over 300 minutes for us, & he has played extremely well. He's a 3; that's where to play him. He's at 31.6% on 3-pt. shots, which is not good, but he is such a strong scorer on 2pt. shots that it makes up for it. & he's extremely solid otherwise.

I assume Dekker will become a better shooter over time, and he'll probably get a little stronger. He's a bit of a tweener right now, a little too small for a 4 and a little to unskilled for a 3, but he may eventually pan out to be a combo forward (equally adept at either position). For now, he's a pretty useful 15 mpg energy guy. I'd definitely retain him for anything south of $3M.

The real question is, do you extend the $3.9M qualifying offer to keep him? In the abstract, he's probably worth it. But given luxtax situation, we may not have the luxury of paying him $3M+ if we want to retain Sato and Bryant.

No. I'm not saying don't resign him but he's not a guy I'd tie up money in.

Same goes for Chasson Randle. I'm happy he's played well but I'm not sold on him being a Wizard beyond this season.

I'd only worry about keeping Sato & Bryant.

You can find guys like Randle & Dekker in the G League and overseas.

[verbal8]

We seem to have had a chance to send Wall to the Lakers, but we didn't take it. Going to be harder to trade him now -- he'll have to play well in the first part of next season for that to be possible.

But, of course we should re-sign Dekker! If you have a player who produces at a higher level that what he's paid or likely to get paid, you absolutely sign that guy!

Dekker has now played over 300 minutes for us, & he has played extremely well. He's a 3; that's where to play him. He's at 31.6% on 3-pt. shots, which is not good, but he is such a strong scorer on 2pt. shots that it makes up for it. & he's extremely solid otherwise.

I assume Dekker will become a better shooter over time, and he'll probably get a little stronger. He's a bit of a tweener right now, a little too small for a 4 and a little to unskilled for a 3, but he may eventually pan out to be a combo forward (equally adept at either position). For now, he's a pretty useful 15 mpg energy guy. I'd definitely retain him for anything south of $3M.

The real question is, do you extend the $3.9M qualifying offer to keep him? In the abstract, he's probably worth it. But given luxtax situation, we may not have the luxury of paying him $3M+ if we want to retain Sato and Bryant.

No. I'm not saying don't resign him but he's not a guy I'd tie up money in.

Same goes for Chasson Randle. I'm happy he's played well but I'm not sold on him being a Wizard beyond this season.

Committing significant assets to good but replaceable players is a common mistake of bad GMs. Good GMs are able to get those players every year. Overpaying those players can be OK if it is on a one-year deal.

I'd only worry about keeping Sato & Bryant.

You can find guys like Randle & Dekker in the G League and overseas.

Agreed. It should be possible to retain those guys at a reasonable rate and get the peak of their production.

[payitforward]

...of course we should re-sign Dekker! If you have a player who produces at a higher level that what he's paid or likely to get paid, you absolutely sign that guy!

Dekker has now played over 300 minutes for us, & he has played extremely well. He's a 3; that's where to play him. He's at 31.6% on 3-pt. shots, which is not good, but he is such a strong scorer on 2pt. shots that it makes up for it. & he's extremely solid otherwise.

...Dekker ... a little too unskilled for a 3, but ... I'd definitely retain him for anything south of $3M.

The real question is, do you extend the $3.9M qualifying offer to keep him? In the abstract, he's probably worth it. But given luxtax situation, we may not have the luxury of paying him $3M+ if we want to retain Sato and Bryant.

No. I'm not saying don't resign him but he's not a guy I'd tie up money in.

Same goes for Chasson Randle. I'm happy he's played well but I'm not sold on him being a Wizard beyond this season.

I'd only worry about keeping Sato & Bryant.

You can find guys like Randle & Dekker in the G League and overseas.

Well, of course I'd prioritize Sato & Bryant over Randle & Dekker. But, no, you can't find guys in the G League who produce the way Dekker has produced for us.

&, per the above "If you have a player who produces at a higher level that what he's paid or likely to get paid, you absolutely sign that guy."

That is the single most important principle to follow. In a salary-capped sport, nothing is more important than getting more production than you are paying for.

That doesn't mean Dekker will keep it up, but he's certainly been terrific so far. & he was pretty good for Cleveland too, earlier in the season (in limited minutes).

He may be "unskilled for a 3," as you write, Nate, in the sense that you can't justify starting him, but 15 minutes a game is 1250 minutes a year. & a guy who can produce at Dekker's current level for 1250 minutes is a bargain at e.g. $5m.

That guy lets you fill another spot, an extra one, with a vet minimum guy or an R2 prospect. Save the $$ on that spot. Assuming he doesn't drop through the floor, which I don't expect, I would try to sign him for 3 years (w/ options on years 2 & 3, of course). Raises in years 2 & 3. The total $12+m. I'd be willing to go a little bit higher, in fact (e.g. 4m, 5m, 5.5m).

As to Randle, I would have agreed with you, dat, as recently as 10 days ago. But, more & more he looks to me like a very smart player who maximizes what abilities he has. & he is genuinely cheap -- you aren't going to replace him for less $$.

Right now, Randle is leading the Wizards in 3 point shooting at 43.9% (& that's on 5.65 attempts per 40 minutes) & posting a TS% of almost 60% -- not bad for a guy picked off the trash heap!

We have until 6/29/19 to pick up his option or let him go. If he stays as solid as he's been, I like keeping him.

[queridiculo]

I haven't really thought about why this team appears to be better at this point, but I will say this.

Watching this group sans Wall, Morris and Oubre has been a whole lot more enjoyable.

Having a faced a softer schedule since Wall has been out has obviously helped, but as a whole this team has been able to compete because they've really cut down on beating themselves.

Sure, Beal still goes basketball moron at times with some of his over dribbling that tends to result in turnovers, but as a group they're getting it done with infinitely better shot selection, collective effort to rebound and just doing a bang up job going full speed make or miss.

Wall sounded humbled in a few a soundbites during a game I watched recently and mentioned learning from watching the team play, so maybe there's hope for putting it together next season, because as well as they've been playing, I think they'll ultimately fall short of making the playoffs.

[CobraCommander]

Better for me would be a plan....if the plan was tanking for a player that would be better...if it was something else obvious it would be tolerable...this is frustrating

Tanking for a particular player (or slot in the draft) is not a "plan"...it's a gamble.

You mean power ball cant be my 401k?